I haven't watched the video but I imagine he's using the word expect in a very precise way, referring to the average of all possible outcomes after weighting them by their probabilities: this is very different from how the word is normally used outside of finance. In practice the expected return is almost never what actually happens, because there is such a wide range of possible outcomes, so we can reasonably expect not to get the expected return.

I never had any expectations specifically. About all you can do is see how your plan behaves under a variety of assumptions and decide if that will get you to your goal. 3% real for equity isn't unreasonable as one of those scenarios.

When you discover that you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount.

I never had any expectations specifically. About all you can do is see how your plan behaves under a variety of assumptions and decide if that will get you to your goal. 3% real for equity isn't unreasonable as one of those scenarios.

Even the master himself is saying we will get something like measly 3% from the market and the fun times are over.

OK, he was saying this in Oct, 2016 - but he may still be correct over the next decade. And what I thought I heard from the video was that for a balanced portfolio, of 50 / 50, the return would be less than that and, In real terms, even lower.

I remember several years - OK, 20 years - he made a similar prediction and then the market dropped. So, his prediction was essentially correct. It just didn't occur in an orderly manner over a long period of time.

I look at 30 year returns, not 10 year. My guess on the 10 year is that we'll be lucky if the 10 year real return is
above zero, but I could be wrong . If I knew when a drop would occur, I could make a bundle but I don't, so I can
just hold some bonds, and rebalance into equities when/if a large drop occurs.

The 30 year forecasts seem to suggest US returns are over 3% real up to about 5% real, with small stocks and global
equities doing slightly better.

What would be the driver for good returns? Ultimately, it would have to be economic growth. The stock market valuations are already very high, so earnings will have to grow significantly, which means economic growth is needed. Unfortunately, US and Europe have been stuck at around 2%, and it's not clear what would change that considering the aging populations and the slowing pace of population growth (in the US it's at its slowest pace since 1937). Some countries in Asia are in better shape in terms of growth, but there are other issues there.

When taking all this into account, it's hard to justify expectations of good stock market returns in the foreseeable future. Something better than 2%/yr or so real (before taxes) on a 60/40 stock/bond portfolio over the next couple of decades would surprise me - not sure how it could happen based on current trends, but it's hard to predict the future.

Asking where growth will come from in the future is similar to someone in 1950 asking about when will the microchip or integrated circuit be invented. All it takes is a few scientific breakthroughs and growth is limitless. My barely educated opinion is that major breakthroughs in energy and energy tech (think batteries) will drive major growth going forward.

Ben Graham wrote The Intelligent Investor in 1949 when the very idea of investing in stocks had been discredited. The Dow peaked in September 1929 at 380. Twenty years later, the Dow was at 180. His goal in writing the book was to argue that buying stocks might actually make sense.

In the book's first chapter he points out that anyone who bought an equal amount (he used $25/month!), spread out among the Dow 30 over that twenty year period would have earned 8%/yr. There were no index funds back then and barely any mutual funds at all so it would not have been easy to implement this but the powerful lesson here that holds to this day is that investing every month (or quarter if that's too hard), in good times and bad provides the opportunity to outperform the market. We'll have to take the risk that we never have a 1930-33 period when huge numbers of people lost their jobs and couldn't find another, which would certainly undercut the dollar cost averaging strategy. But short of that, just do what we all know needs to be done and the results will very probably be much better than the underlying market during the same period.

Asking where growth will come from in the future is similar to someone in 1950 asking about when will the microchip or integrated circuit be invented. All it takes is a few scientific breakthroughs and growth is limitless. My barely educated opinion is that major breakthroughs in energy and energy tech (think batteries) will drive major growth going forward.

Yes, technological breakthroughs could make the difference that would lead to better market returns. People who are counting on better market returns are essentially betting on that (the rest of the picture doesn't look good), and it's important to realize that.

In terms of technological advancements that have a major impact on the actual growth of the economy, I find that the pace of those breakthroughs has slowed down significantly this century when compared to last century. I don't feel comfortable betting on great breakthroughs in science/technology over the next couple of decades to be able to survive financially during retirement. Maybe if I was younger... For people within a few years of retirement or in retirement, it's worrisome.

Asking where growth will come from in the future is similar to someone in 1950 asking about when will the microchip or integrated circuit be invented. All it takes is a few scientific breakthroughs and growth is limitless. My barely educated opinion is that major breakthroughs in energy and energy tech (think batteries) will drive major growth going forward.

Yes, technological breakthroughs could make the difference that would lead to better market returns. People who are counting on better market returns are essentially betting on that (the rest of the picture doesn't look good), and it's important to realize that.

In terms of technological advancements that have a major impact on the actual growth of the economy, I find that the pace of those breakthroughs has slowed down significantly this century when compared to last century. I don't feel comfortable betting on great breakthroughs in science/technology over the next couple of decades to be able to survive financially during retirement. Maybe if I was younger... For people within a few years of retirement or in retirement, it's worrisome.

I think it's worth understanding the scenarios whereby you end up at 3% for a decade.

For example, if you average an 8% return for 9 of those years and have one year where the market is down by 1/3, you end up with a 3% CAGR.

That's not really a depressing combination of events--that's more like what we call "normal". Abnormal returns result when you go 10 years and don't have a significant bear market. Those happen too, but I would never plan my finances around it.

At any time (not just today), it's always a sensible assumption that there will be a significant bear market sometime in the next decade.

What would be the driver for good returns? Ultimately, it would have to be economic growth. The stock market valuations are already very high, so earnings will have to grow significantly, which means economic growth is needed. Unfortunately, US and Europe have been stuck at around 2%, and it's not clear what would change that considering the aging populations and the slowing pace of population growth (in the US it's at its slowest pace since 1937). Some countries in Asia are in better shape in terms of growth, but there are other issues there.

With multinationals, we don't really care where the economic growth occurs, do we?

I am not a lawyer, accountant or financial advisor. Any advice or suggestions that I may provide shall be considered for entertainment purposes only.

What would be the driver for good returns? Ultimately, it would have to be economic growth. The stock market valuations are already very high, so earnings will have to grow significantly, which means economic growth is needed. Unfortunately, US and Europe have been stuck at around 2%, and it's not clear what would change that considering the aging populations and the slowing pace of population growth (in the US it's at its slowest pace since 1937). Some countries in Asia are in better shape in terms of growth, but there are other issues there.

With multinationals, we don't really care where the economic growth occurs, do we?

Right in theory. In practice, when you're dealing with places like China and India, things may get more complicated...

The lack of growth and stagnating populations of the US and Europe are definitely an issue that I'm very concerned about.

I'm an "early accumulator". Low single digit growth, or even negative growth would be fine by me. I'll keep picking up shares at these prices. Over the next 25 - 35 years, I expect that equities will turn out OK.

People were predicting low returns going forward in mid 2013... S&P up 75% since then...

Well, I guess that means future expected returns will be even lower than predicted in 2013.

My guess is that Mr. Bogle expects P/E ratios to contract a bit over the next decade, which would of course be a drag on returns. We saw a pretty dramatic Price/Earnings ratio expansion in the 1990's, which is a big reason stock returns were so fantastic. The 2000's saw P/E contraction, which is why stock prices were more or less flat during that decade despite a doubling of corporate earnings.

People were predicting low returns going forward in mid 2013... S&P up 75% since then...

My guess is that Mr. Bogle expects P/E ratios to contract a bit over the next decade, which would of course be a drag on returns.

It won't be a drag on returns if the "contraction" is due to an increase in the denominator. That's clearly what the market is expecting (unless we buy into the idea that stock prices are established mostly by the greedy/ignorant unsophisticated investors and not the really really smart institutional investors).

I am not a lawyer, accountant or financial advisor. Any advice or suggestions that I may provide shall be considered for entertainment purposes only.

People were predicting low returns going forward in mid 2013... S&P up 75% since then...

My guess is that Mr. Bogle expects P/E ratios to contract a bit over the next decade, which would of course be a drag on returns.

It won't be a drag on returns if the "contraction" is due to an increase in the denominator. That's clearly what the market is expecting (unless we buy into the idea that stock prices are established mostly by the greedy/ignorant unsophisticated investors and not the really really smart institutional investors).

Yes, a contraction of P/E ratios will be a drag no matter what earnings do. Returns might still be positive but less than if there was no P/E contraction. Again, earnings were fantastic during the 2000's but the market was more or less flat during that decade because of P/E contraction. Investor expectations in the late 1990's were too high and what we saw were more realistic expectations during the 2000's.

I have posted quite often about my "four horsemen of underperformance." These were stocks that were market darlings during the 1990's that I purchased at "bargain" prices after the 2000-2002 bear market. These stocks were AIG, General Electric, Microsoft, and Pfizer. I thought they were relative bargains when I bought them but in retrospect were still overpriced. A classic result of investor expectations being too high. Believe me, I know all about P/E contraction. G/E once had a P/E of 45 as the market believed earnings were growing at 15% but probably in reality were growing at more like 8%. Shows what clever financial engineering can do. Coke was a similar story.

I think it's worth understanding the scenarios whereby you end up at 3% for a decade.

For example, if you average an 8% return for 9 of those years and have one year where the market is down by 1/3, you end up with a 3% CAGR.

That's not really a depressing combination of events--that's more like what we call "normal". Abnormal returns result when you go 10 years and don't have a significant bear market. Those happen too, but I would never plan my finances around it.

Bingo. With all the data and studies and real world experience pointing to no one consistently predicting the future out of the realm of dumb luck vs. skill why do folks fall so quickly for what anyone says. I wouldn't care if Mr. Bogle predicts 20% or -20% returns. He is no different in this respect then the fortune teller done the streets. I know on numerous other interviews after forcing such a prediction he has no problem saying he may be completely wrong.

Good luck.

"The stock market [fluctuation], therefore, is noise. A giant distraction from the business of investing.” |
-Jack Bogle

I think it's worth understanding the scenarios whereby you end up at 3% for a decade.

For example, if you average an 8% return for 9 of those years and have one year where the market is down by 1/3, you end up with a 3% CAGR.

That's not really a depressing combination of events--that's more like what we call "normal".

This made me wonder how often, in the historical data, we've seen a decade of real returns at 3%. I can't recall seeing numbers like that talked about very often, so I spent some time with https://dqydj.com/sp-500-return-calculator/ to look....

I think most people have no idea how often real 10-year returns have been at or below Bogle's 3% number, so I made a color coded chart to show how things have been since 1950.

Over that 58 year period, 27 of the periods have been at or below 3% real returns for the S&P 500. That's nearly a 50/50 split.

Of course, another way to look at the data is that they've only been red -- at or below 3% real -- during 3 of the 4 largest stock market crashes in world history.

It is also apparent that, unlike in the past, we've not yet had a "regime change" shift to a decade of good real returns. For Bogle to say we've in for another decade of low real returns would not only require another one of the largest stock market crashes in world history (that is, 3 of them in less than 2 decades) but that the stretch of 1998-2028 would be, by far, the worst 30 years to invest in US history, eclipsing the stagflation of the 1960s and 1970s.

Over that 58 year period, 27 of the periods have been at or below 3% real returns for the S&P 500. That's nearly a 50/50 split.

So, if I'm retired and I get 3%/yr real over the next decade for the stock market, and 0% real for bonds, and I'm at 50/50, then my real return is 1.5% before tax (assuming no further investments or re-balancing). Pretty sad that half of 10-year periods have been like this or worse (at least on the stock side)...

It is not unusual to expect a minimum of a 6% "net" CAP on "Tightly run (no delegation)", non leveraged (no mortgage no loans) , R/E multi unit housing rentals in prime locations. Add property appreciation to this plus the advantage of deductions and depreciation.
Absolutely dominates that "like" 3% market return prediction.
But then, it is as full time business and a more than full time job when run this way.
Oh well.

Markets have been around in various forms based on similar principles for thousands of years now, haven’t they? What have they returned on average for all that time to the cautious investor, maybe 3 or 4 percent? Should we ever expect more? — Tet

This made me wonder how often, in the historical data, we've seen a decade of real returns at 3%. I can't recall seeing numbers like that talked about very often, so I spent some time with https://dqydj.com/sp-500-return-calculator/ to look....

I think most people have no idea how often real 10-year returns have been at or below Bogle's 3% number, so I made a color coded chart to show how things have been since 1950.

Over that 58 year period, 27 of the periods have been at or below 3% real returns for the S&P 500. That's nearly a 50/50 split.

Of course, another way to look at the data is that they've only been red -- at or below 3% real -- during 3 of the 4 largest stock market crashes in world history.

Seems more than 3%. Maybe you accidentally used the first number given by dqydj, it confusingly gives a "total return" EXCLUDING dividends first, then below that says "Annualized S&P 500 Return (Dividends Reinvested)", which is the actual total return.

Jan 1960 to Jan 1970 was 5.1% a year INCLUDING dividends, 1.8% WITHOUT dividends. Funny how the return gets better when you include dividends! Historically dividend payout ratios were much bigger than now, so the further you go back the more they matter and the more misleading prices are on their own.

Pretty annoying that DQYDJ falsely gives a "Total S&P 500 Return" without including dividends, a common fallacy, since total return by definition includes dividends. Even more bizarrely, below the calculator the site talks about unfair comparisons, while the calculator itself gives a confusing presentation, leading people to misunderstand returns.

Speaking as a total amateur, I think predicting markets is increasingly difficult as we seem to be (and hopefully are) on the verge of technological breakthroughs in transportation and energy that might disrupt a cascading number of industries and production. The rate of technological advance is more geometric than linear.

Generally, when all the experts predict that stocks won't earn any more money.....they do. A lot!!!

Bogle isn't usually among the ranks of the bears, but the bears are usually the most vocal, and the most frequently wrong.
Whatever the market does, it seems to do what nobody thinks is going to happen (for better or worse).

"To achieve satisfactory investment results is easier than most people realize; to achieve superior results is harder than it looks." - Benjamin Graham

I pay absolutely no attention to market forecasts from anyone because they are almost always wrong, no matter whom the forecaster is.
We need to understand that nobody knows the future and prepare for the good, the bad and everything inbetween.